Perez v. Lippold

download Perez v.  Lippold

of 11

  • date post

    24-Feb-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    92
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Perez v. Lippold. By: Brianna Forte Ben Burns. Background. Case also known as “Perez v. Sharp” and “Perez v. Moroney ” Based upon codes 60 and 69, white people were not aloud to marry any other race Perez and Davis applied for a marriage license - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Perez v. Lippold

Perez v. Lippoldby Melissa Theam, Hannah Waples, Joshua Penick, and John BatesPerez V. LippoldCalifornia Supreme Court decision, Perez v. Lippold, 32 Cal. 2d 711, voided California's ban on interracial marriages on October 1, 1948, 19 years before the US Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia. Petitioners seek to compel the County Clerk of Los Angeles County to issue a certificate of registry and license to marry. Andrea Perez, Caucasian & Sylvester Davis, African Am.Roman CatholicRespondent refuses to issue the certificate and license invoking Civ. code, sec. 69. Jerry Lippold, whiteLos Angeles County Clerk

Civil Code, Section 69No license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a negro, mulatto, mongolian, or member of the malay race.Works in conjunction with Civ. Code, Sec. 60 which first appeared in 1872Originally prohibited marriage between whites and negroes or mulattos. Twice amended to include Mongolians and later, members of the Malay race.

Petitioners contend statutes are unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of their religion & deny them to participate fully in the elements of their religion.Petitioners maintain that since the church has no rule forbidding marriages between negroes and caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of matrimony.Reasons used to support court decision Californias Civil Code sec. 60 & sec. 69 decided unconstitutional states: All marriages of white persons with negroes, mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void.cannot infringe on the right to participate fully in ones religion 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof due process clause of the 14th amendment marriage is a fundamental right states possess the power to regulate marriage within their state only if it is conducted to protect society and is not unreasonably discriminatory Since the right to marry is the rights to join in marriage with the person of ones choice, a statute that prohibits an individual from marrying a member of a race other than his own restricts the scope of his choice.-Associate Justice Roger Traynor

A few interesting facts about anti-miscegenation laws The word miscegenation, a mashup of the Latin miscere (to mingle) and genus (category), is a purely American invention. The term was coined during the Civil War and appeared in a political pamphlet aimed at discrediting Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans.Maryland was the first state to enact an anti-miscegenation law In 1664.When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, 7 of the 13 colonies actively banned interracial marriages. Pennsylvania was the first to repeal its anti-miscegenation law, in 1780.

Significant points established by the court decisionOverturned anti-miscegenation laws in the state of CaliforniaPaved the way for anti-miscegenation laws to be overturned in other states.1967 Loving v. Virginia was the case that ended anti-miscegenation laws nationwideEven after Loving prevented states from enforcing anti-miscegenation laws, such laws technically remained on the books in some states. The last remaining state-law ban on interracial marriages was a provision in the Alabama constitution, which was repealed by referendum in 2000.anti-miscegenation nowPerez v. Lippolds impact on democracythe courts decision greatly furthered democracyit granted citizens of the United States the freedom to choose the individual they wanted to spend their life with, regardless of racethe anti miscegenation laws in California infringed on the right to practice religious freedom, so the ban on these laws ensured this freedom to all citizensthis freedom was a great advancement in the rights of black citizens and citizens in general, contributing to an overall advance in democracy

Works Cited"Freedom To Marry." Freedom to Marry. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015."Perez V. Lippold." Pc2d198a.pdf (n.d.): n. pag. Law.columbia.edu. Web. 21 Oct. 2015."Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library." Perez v. Sharp. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015."Supreme Court of California, in Bank." Perez v. Lippold (Cal. 1948). N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.Moore, Elizabeth R. "Loving v. Virginia." Encyclopedia of Civil Rights in America. Ed. David Bradley and Shelley Fisher Fishkin. Vol. 2. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 1998. 548-549. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 24 Aug. 2010."Miscegenation." MISCEGENATION (n.d.): n. pag. Www.tn.gov. Web.